Protecting the Olympic brand: winners and losers

Hartland, Trevor; Williams-Burnett, Nicola

doi:10.1080/0965254x.2011.628404

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As it was proved by the research of Hartland and Skinner (2005, p. 245), extralegal actions taken by sponsors and organizers "to block ambush attempts are only enforceable with recourse to the law". Most of the authors focused on describing the legislative specifics of the host countries of the Olympics (Alexandrakis, 2009;Ellis, Gauthier, & Séguin, 2011;Grady, McKelvey, & Bernthal, 2010;Hartland & Williams-Burnett, 2012;James & Osborn, 2011;Stuart & Scassa, 2011), or describing actions taken by the International Olympic Committee in order to protect the rights of the official sponsors of the event (Payne, 1998;Stuart & Scassa, 2011). There is also work which presents normative acts on fighting ambush marketing in a given market, e.g.…”

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

A Systematic Literature Review on Ambush Marketing in Sport

Piątkowska

Żyśko

Gocłowska

2015

Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

A Systematic Literature Review on Ambush Marketing in Sport

Piątkowska

Żyśko

Gocłowska

2015

Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ambush marketing practices thus encompass a wide array of tactics, strategies, marketing media, and commercial objectives, ranging from early broadcast and subcategory sponsorship agreements (Meenaghan, 1996), to more subversive, associative advertising campaigns based upon event themes, imagery, terminology, or host city and country identifiers (Chase and Kurnit, 2010;Hartland and Williams-Burnett, 2012). Importantly, ambush marketers have seemingly responded proactively to the development and enforcement of commercial rights management and counterambush initiatives, and have identified more creative and unregulated means of aligning with major events and sports properties (Cornwell, 2008;Burton and Chadwick, 2009;Chadwick and Burton, 2011).…”

Section: Ambush Marketing: a Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambush Marketing Is Dead, Long Live Ambush Marketing

Burton¹,

Chadwick²

2017

JAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act for the 2010 Vancouver Games, or the London Olympics Association Right for the 2012 London Games, banned even the mere suggestion of a link between a pseudo-sponsor and the event. Ellis et al (2011) as well as Hartland and Williams-Burnett (2012) show that such laws may well be unconstitutional and, hence, extremely difficult to enforce. Due to the conundrum of protecting sponsors without infringing on the fundamental freedom of commerce and individual expression, the Promotion, Event and Broadcast strategies are likely to be in use for years to come.…”

Section: Weapons Of Mass Intrusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weapons of mass intrusion: the leveraging of ambush marketing strategies

Carrillat

Colbert²,

Feigné³

2014

European Journal of Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The study presented in this article aims to examine the impact of the leveraging of three distinct ambush marketing strategies that are under-researched in the literature: Promotion, Event, and Broadcast. Design/methodology/approach – An experiment was conducted where the type of ambush strategy was manipulated (i.e. Promotion, Event, Broadcast, no ambush) as well as the market dominance of the sponsor (i.e. dominant or non-dominant) and the congruence level between the event and the sponsor (i.e. high or low congruence). Findings – Ambush strategies' impacts differ widely. The Broadcast strategy is the most harmful to the identification of the actual sponsor; the Event strategy favors the identification of the pseudo-sponsor as the sponsor, while the Promotion strategy is both harmful to the actual sponsor and beneficial for the pseudo-sponsor. Furthermore, although dominant brands benefit more from their sponsorships, they are more affected by an ambush than non-dominant brands. Research limitations/implications – Only one sponsor and one pseudo-sponsor were considered at a time. In addition, digital media were not investigated as vectors of ambush marketing. Further research where multiple sponsors and pseudo-sponsors are leveraging their associations to an event, using both off and on-line media, needs to be undertaken. Practical implications – Against the Promotion strategy sponsors need to create not only strong but also unique associations with the event. The Event strategy can be circumvented with preemptive smaller scale events. Exclusive access to the program broadcast for event sponsors can protect against pseudo-sponsors. Originality/value – This study is the first to provide empirical evidence regarding the impact of the Promotion, Event, and Broadcast strategies. Previous studies had focused almost exclusively on another strategy: the airing of commercials by pseudo-sponsors during event broadcast against which most sponsors are now effectively protected.

show abstract

Protecting the Olympic brand: winners and losers

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

A Systematic Literature Review on Ambush Marketing in Sport

A Systematic Literature Review on Ambush Marketing in Sport

Ambush Marketing Is Dead, Long Live Ambush Marketing

Weapons of mass intrusion: the leveraging of ambush marketing strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About